Chris Matthews and the Corporate News Media Versus Barack Obama

Time for change

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-26-08 07:50 PM
Original message

Chris Matthews and the Corporate News Media Versus Barack Obama

Edited on Sat Apr-26-08 08:22 PM by Time for change

It has long been recognized in our country that use of the public airways is a privilege rather than a right. That is why, as early as 1927 our government began requiring licenses for use of the public airways, in the Radio Act of 1927, which was expanded in the Communications Act of 1934. Since then, the underlying standard for radio and television licensing has been the �public interest, convenience and necessity clause�, which is explained here by Sharon Zechowski:

The obligation to serve the public interest is integral to the "trusteeship" model of broadcasting � the philosophical foundation upon which broadcasters are expected to operate. The trusteeship paradigm is used to justify government regulation of broadcasting. It maintains that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource belonging to the public, and only those most capable of serving the public interest are entrusted with a broadcast license. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the government body responsible for determining whether or not applicants for broadcast license meet the requirements to obtain them and for further regulation of those to whom licenses have been granted.

It is in this context that I would like to discuss Chris Matthews� continuing abuse of his privilege as a so-called journalist, to impart information to the American people that not only fails to serve the public interest, but actually sabotages it.

Of course, there are myriad such �journalists� who infest American journalism today, so why should I single out Matthews? I can only say in answer to that question that he disgusts me more than the more transparent right wing �journalists�, such as those found on FOX News. Perhaps that is because I rarely watch or listen to those people. Or perhaps it�s because I see in people like Chris Matthews (and Tim Russert) a greater danger to the public interest than the more transparent types. Only hard line right wingers listen to people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Therefore, their vote isn�t likely to be influenced by them. But those who give off the appearance of being neutral have more capacity to influence voters and swing elections.

The contention that Barack Obama is not a �regular guy�

I don�t know if it was Matthews who originally brought the question �Who would you rather have a beer with?� into prominence as an important election issue, but I doubt that anyone used it more than him to push the Presidential candidacy of George W. Bush. His presumption was that most Americans would rather have a beer with Bush than Al Gore, and therefore Bush is more of a �regular guy� and more likeable.

Now he�s at it again, pushing the idea that Barack Obama isn�t a �regular guy�. Here�s Chris commenting on Obama�s bowling:

Here�s a guy trying to break into the white ethnic voting crowd�. and none of us has ever done a 37, I think it�s fair to say� The fact that he�s good at basketball doesn�t surprise anybody� But the fact that he�s that terrible at bowling does make you wonder.

That makes you wonder about what Chris, you bombastic idiot?

And here are Matthews and his guest, David Shuster, criticizing Obama for his preference for orange juice:

MATTHEWS: He�s not good at that � handshaking in a diner� Barack doesn�t seem to know how to do that right� What�s so hard about doing a diner? I don�t get it. Why doesn�t he go in there and say, �Did you see the papers today? What did you think about that team? How did we do last night? Just some regular connection?

SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."

MATTHEWS: No.

SHUSTER: He did. And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice".

MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.

Of course, the whole point of all this crap is to show that Obama isn�t a �regular guy�. Here Matthews makes that point more explicitly, while interviewing Senator Claire McCaskill:

Let me ask you about how he � how�s he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?

Ok, so his point is that only white people and people without college educations are �regular� people. If that�s his opinion, then fine, he has the right to express it. But does he have the right to do so using the public airways under a license that requires television stations to act in the public interest? I�m not saying that political commentators shouldn�t express their opinions regarding presidential candidates. But shouldn�t those opinions be backed up with at least some substance that is remotely related to a candidate�s capacity to perform in the office?

Matthews� sick adulation for �macho� Republican men

In marked contrast to how he makes Democrats out to be �not regular people�, Matthews seems to have a highly inappropriate (for a journalist) public fascination with �macho� Republican men. Here he is talking about Fred Thompson:

Does Fred Thompson have sex appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out� what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice? �Do you think there's a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself. What is this appeal? Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of � a little bit of cigar smoke?

Here are some quips by Matthews to and about Rudy Giuliani:

You know, Mayor (to Giuliani), for months now, I think I�ve been one of the troubadours for you out there in terms of your prospects. I have always seen the Giuliani advantage in a party that treasures leadership�.

He�s (Giuliani) got the kind of demeanor and the toughness that I think made him a success as mayor and I think will make him a success on this campaign trail� Rudy is this tough, kick-butt cop from New York. You know he�s not a nice guy. You know he can be an SOB, but maybe that�s what you want on the subway at 3 o�clock in the morning�. That�s what I began hearing several years ago, that Southerners look to Giuliani as a leader. And Republicans, as we all know, love leaders�. He looks like a president to me�. Southerners can�t spell his name necessarily, but they know Rudy was a hero.

He not only makes a great big deal about how great these �macho� Republicans look, he also can�t help but feel that looking great translates into political leadership. Here�s an example of that � Matthews ogling over how great George Bush looks in a flight suit after proclaiming victory in Iraq, and confusing that with political leadership

The president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief?

He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West� We're proud of our President. Americans love having a guy as President, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton.... Women like a guy who's President. Check it out�

Look at this guy! We're watching him. He looks like he flew the plane. He only flew it as a passenger, but he's flown � I mean, he seems like � he didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he did.

National corporate news media coverage of politics

This is the kind of stuff that we have to look forward to � not only for the rest of the 2008 campaign season, but forever more, as long as corporate America enjoys a monopoly on mainstream news coverage. Corporate America has always enjoyed a disproportionate role in news coverage of American politics, but the trend accelerated substantially following passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which opened the door for news media consolidation such as we�ve never seen before.

Matthews� coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates is the precise opposite of his coverage of Republican candidates. He often said that Al Gore would lick the bathroom floor to be President; John Kerry is not Presidential; John Edwards is feminine. By contrast, this is what we have to look forward to in Matthews� coverage of John McCain�s candidacy:

"A lot of people," he (Matthews) explained coyly, naming no names, "like the cut of John McCain's jib, his independence, his maverick reputation." This led Matthews to declare the election all but over, announcing that as far as he was concerned, McCain "deserves the presidency."

Chris Matthews is just one example, but our national corporate news media is full of examples like that, as witnessed by Tim Russert�s moderating of the September 26th, 2007 Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth and by ABC�s moderating of the April 17th, 2008 Presidential Democratic debate in Philadelphia. And Russert and Matthews are considered centrists.

These kind of things matter a lot to the outcome of elections. It may seem to some that a Chris Matthews� comments about whether or not Barack Obama is a �regular guy� should not matter to the outcome of national elections. It is true that they should not matter. But unfortunately they do. There are many people who do not spend much time trying to follow the substantive issues that are relevant to a candidate�s capacity to hold public office. Our corporate national news media provides far too little help in that regard, and in many or most respects they are more hindrance than help. Consequently, many voters vote on the basis of their �gut feelings� � on the �likeability� of candidates or whether they are �regular people�. Those are precisely the voters who are most susceptible to the manipulations of news media personalities like Chris Matthews, who attempt to fill our heads with misinformation and inane trivia. If public licensing of television and radio really strove for the public interest, Chris Matthews and those like him would not be allowed to use the public airways to pose as serious journalists.

A word on Obama�s chances for the 2008 presidency

Barack Obama has been hit with a lot lately. The Reverend Wright issue threatened to destroy his candidacy, and yet Obama responded to it in a forthright manner and kept on going. His opponents and our corporate news media tried to characterize his April 16th speech in San Francisco as �elitist�, and yet that appeared to barely make a dent in his poll numbers. The negativity of the Clinton campaign would seem to be hurting him badly, and yet through all that he appears to be climbing in the national polls against his Republican opponent for November.

Many have expressed dismay that Obama isn�t beating McCain by a large margin in national polls. I believe that part of that is merely appearance. Because Rasmussen polls are reported every day, they are likely to be over-represented whenever one looks at or tries to average recent polls. For example, national poll averages as reported by �Real Clear Politics� have consistently over the past several weeks shown McCain and Obama within 1% of each other or Obama with a lead. A striking thing about these averages of recent polls is the vast difference between the Rasmussen poll results and all the other poll results with respect to Obama-McCain comparisons (and Clinton-McCain comparisons as well).

Rasmussen poll results since March 15th have shown McCain leading Obama in 40 of 43 polls, with one tie and two small Obama leads, and a McCain average lead of almost 5% (although narrowing in recent days). But for all other polls combined during the same time period, Obama leads in 12 of 17 polls (slightly widening in recent days), with three ties and two McCain leads, and an average Obama lead of more than 2%. Thus, the over-representation of Rasmussen polls (because they are reported every day) has usually obscured the Obama lead to virtually nothing.

That�s a huge difference between the Rasmussen polls and all other polls, which could not possibly be explained by chance. The difference must be explained by a difference in polling methodology. What could that entail? Some have suggested that the difference is explained by Rasmussen�s use of an �adjustment� for election fraud.

Anyhow, Obama�s proven ability to raise record breaking amounts of money from mostly small donors and his ability to take punches without letting them affect his poll numbers bode well for the coming election. If he can do as well as he is currently doing against McCain while in the midst of a bitter primary fight the likes of which McCain has not had to contend with, just think how well he might do after he receives the nomination, and the Democratic Party is given some time to unite behind him. I would say that the prospects for an Obama Presidency look pretty good if we can get a reasonably united Democratic Party. If we can do that, the Republicans are going to have to come up with something far more damaging that criticizing Obama�s choice of orange juice over coffee.